Sie sind auf Seite 1von 18

Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment


NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
National Capital Region
Quezon City

JENNY M. BERNARDINO,

Complainant,

- versus- NLRC CASE NO. NCR-10-


13269-14

TECHNOTIME RETAILERS CORPORATION,


CHRISTIAN BALITA and
MABEGAILE CACAL,
Respondents.
x----------------------------------------------------x

COMPLAINANTS POSITION PAPER

COMPLAINANT, by counsel, to this Honorable Office,


most respectfully submits this Position Paper in support of
her Complaint as follows:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

The Court has invariably affirmed that it will


not hesitate to tilt the scales of justice to the labor
class for no less than the Constitution dictates
that the State . . . shall protect the rights of
workers and promote their welfare. It is
committed to this policy and has always been
quick to rise to defense in the rights of labor, as in
this case. (Lopez vs. Metropolitan Waterworks
and Sewerage System, 462 SCRA 428).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a case for illegal dismissal, non-payment of


service incentive leave, 13th month pay, illegal suspension,
underpayment of salaries and wages, non-observance of the
Solo Parent Leave, damages, attorneys fees, litigation
expenses and cost of suit filed by herein Complainants
against the herein Respondents.

As reliefs, Complainant seeks for her immediate


reinstatement to her former position without loss of seniority
rights and other privileges under the law and the payment of
her full back wages, inclusive of allowances, and to other
benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the
time her compensation was withheld from her up to the
finality of the decision in this case.

Furthermore, Complainant seeks that she will be


compensated for moral and exemplary damages, ten percent
(10%) attorneys fees computed from the total monetary
award, and other related litigation expenses.

PARTIES

Complainant, JENNY M. BERNARDINO (hereinafter


referred to as the Complainant), is of legal age, Filipino, a
resident of Blk. 39 Lot 48 Maliputo Street, Northbay
Boulevard South, Navotas City and a regular employee of
herein Respondents. She may be served with summonses
and other legal processes through the undersigned counsel
at Room 206, Jiao Bldg., No. 2 Timog Avenue, Quezon City.

Respondent TECHNOTIME RETAILERS CORPORATION is a


corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
Philippines with business address at Unit 2501-2505 One
Corporate Center, Julia Vargas Avenue corner Meralco
Avenue, Ortigas, Pasig City. Respondents Christian Balita and
Mabegaile Cacal are responsible officers of the Respondent
corporation who caused the inhumane and oppressive
treatment against herein Complainant. They may be served
with summonses and other legal processes through their
business address as stated above.

FACTS OF THE CASE


1. Complainant was recruited, hired and deployed by
Technotime Retailers Corporation to perform the job of a
Store Supervisor in one of its watch retail stores located in
Quezon City. Her job is necessary, desirable and directly
related to the main business of the aforementioned
Respondent corporation;

2. The circumstances surrounding the illegal


dismissal of herein Complainant was clearly established and
narrated by her in her own SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY,
marked as Annex A hereof, and quoted hereunder for the
appreciation of the Honorable Arbiter, to wit:

AKO, si JENNY M. BERNARDINO, Pilipino,


nasa hustong gulang, at nakatira sa Blk. 39, Lot
48, Maliputo St., Northbay Boulevard South
(NBBS), Navotas, pagkatapos manumpa alinsunod
sa ipinag-uutos ng batas, ay malaya at kusang
loob na nagsasaad ng mga sumusunod, na:

(1) Ako po ay regular na empleyado ng


TECHNOTIME RETAILERS CORPORATION bilang
isang STORE SUPERVISOR. Ako po ay nakatalaga
bilang isang Store Head sa isa sa mga sangay o
tindahan ng kumpanya sa isang mall sa Quezon
City. Nagsimula po akong magtrabaho dito noong
ika-13 ng Marso 2013;

(2) Ang oras po ng aking pagta-trabaho ay


mula 10:45 ng umaga hanggang 8:00 ng gabi;

(3) Ako po ay sumasahod ng humigit


kumulang Labing Walong Libo (Php 18,000.00)
kada buwan;

(4) Nagsimula ang aking kalbaryo bilang


isang manggagawa noong ika-31 ng Agosto 2014
nang sa hindi sinasadyang pagkakamali ay
nakaranas ako ng pagma-maltrato mula sa aming
manager na si Christian Balita;

(5) Bandang 11:30 ng umaga nang araw na


iyon, ako ay nakahandang mag-send ng text
messages kay Ginoong Balita gamit ang company
phone. Ito ay isa sa aking mga tungkulin araw-
araw upang ipaalam ang attendance (oras ng
pagpasok) ng mga kawani ng aming sangay
(store). Kasama din sa text messages ang oras
kung anong oras binuksan ang vaults ng aming
tindahan;

(6) Habang ini-edit ko ang template sa


cellphone ay biglang may pumasok na kliyente sa
aming tindahan. Pansamantala akong tumigil sa
pag-edit at inasikaso ko ang aming kliyente;

(7) Pagkalabas ng kliyente, binalikan ko


ang ang aking ginagawa. Pagkatapos ko i-type
lahat ng dapat na detalye sa aking mensahe, ito
ay akin ng pinadala kay Ginoong Balita;

(8) Mga bandang ika-3 ng hapon, ako ay


nakatanggap ng text message mula kay Ginoong
Christian Balita na nagsasabi, "How come that
your vault open is late while you came in the store
on time?";

(9) Binalikan ko po ang huling text message


na aking pinadala kay Ginoong Balita ng umagang
iyon. Nakita ko nga po na hindi ko nabago ang
oras ng time-in ko. Nakalagay po doon na small
vault opened at 10:55 a.m. and main vault
opened at 10:56 a.m. Pero ang time-in naming
lahat ay hindi ko nabago. Ito po ay may oras na
10:45 a.m.;

(10) Humingi ako ng paumanhin at nag-


resend ng panibago;

(11) Nagulat na lang ako dahil galit na galit


na nag-reply ang aking boss sa akin. Ako ay
inaakusahan niya ng pandaraya. Sinadya ko daw
na i-mali ang time-in ko;

(12) Hindi po totoo ang kanyang


pagbibintang dahil isa lamang honest mistake ang
nangyari;
(13) Kung ako po ay gagawa ng pandaraya,
dapat hindi ko na inilagay na late ang oras ng
vault opening namin;

(14) Bukod sa text messages na ipinapadala


ko kay Ginoong Balita araw-araw tungkol sa aming
attendance ay meron din kaming logbook na kung
saan ay inilalagda namin ang oras ng aming
pagpasok. Malinaw sa logbook na 10:55 a.m.
talaga ang aking itinala dahil ito naman ang tunay
na oras ng aking pagdating sa araw na iyon;

(15) Meron din kaming Daily Time Record


(DTR) na pinapadala sa aming main office at
nakatala din doon ang oras na 10:55 a.m.;

(16) Sa kabila ng aking mga paghingi ng


paumanhin, ako ay nagulat kung paano ako trinato
at pinag-sabihan ng mga masasakit na salita ni
Ginoong Balita;

(17) Sinabihan ako ni Ginoong Balita na mag-


resign na daw ako bago pa daw niya ako gawan ng
mga memo;

(18) Sa kabila pa rin ng kanyang galit sa


akin, ako ay nagpadala pa rin ng text messages
gamit ang aking personal mobile phone upang
sabihin na humihingi ako ng paumanhin sa hindi
ko sinasadyang pangyayari;

(19) Wala akong intensyong masama at sana


mabigyan ng pagkakataon na makapag-paliwanag
sa kanya ng personal at maipag-tanggol ko ang
aking sarili;

(20) Ngunit hindi na ako nakatanggap ng


anumang tugon mula sa kanya;

(21) Sa mga sumunod na araw mula ng


pangyayaring naitala sa itaas ay hindi na naging
maganda ang pakikitungo sa akin ni Ginoong
Balita;

(22) Pumupunta lamang siya sa aming


sangay kapag ako ay wala sa tindahan. Dinamdam
ko ito sa kadahilanang dapat kami ay nag-uusap;

(23) Muli ko naramdaman ang hindi tamang


pag-trato sa akin ng aking boss na si Ginoong
Balita ng ako ay mag-text sa kanya noong ika-10
ng Setyembre 2014. Nagpaalam ako sa kanya na
hindi ako makakatuloy sa pagpasok dahil ang
aking anak na bunso ay naaksidente sa school.
Ninais kong lumiban ng araw na iyon dahil
mahalaga na makita ko ang kalagayan ng aking
anak;

(24) Wala ako na-receive na reply mula kay


Ginoong Balita kaya ako ay nag-decide na
pumunta na muna sa tindahan para mag-open ng
vault;

(25) Ako ay muling nag-text sa kanya upang


magpaalam na na-open ko na ang tindahan at
magpaalam na hindi na muna ako papasok dahil
nga sa nangyari;

(26) Hindi pa rin siya nag-reply kaya ako ay


tumawag na sa aming scheduler na si Sir Pierre.
Ako ay nagtaka dahil sa kabila ng aking mga text
messages kay Ginoong Balita ay kay Sir Pierre siya
nag-abiso tungkol sa aking hiling;

(27) Ipinaalam sa akin ni Sir Pierre na sinabi


sa kanya ni Ginoong Balita na pwede daw ako
umuwi pero dapat ay bumalik ako ng 3 p.m. dahil
kung hindi ako babalik sa trabaho ay kakasuhan
ako ni Ginoong Balita ng insubordination;

(28) Ako ay napaiyak sapagkat damang-


dama ko ang hindi tamang pag-trato sa akin ni
Ginoong Balita. Alam niya na ako ay isang single
mother at alam niya na emergency ang nangyari
sa aking anak;

(29) Lumipas ang ilang sandali, muling


tumawag si Sir Pierre sa akin at sinabi na maaari
na daw ako umuwi kapag dumating ang reliever
na ipapadala nila;
(30) Na-confine ang aking anak ng pitong (7)
araw kaya hindi ako nakapasok sa trabaho. Siya
ay na-discharged mula sa ospital noong ika-16 ng
Setyembre 2014;

(31) Noong ika-17 ng Setyembre 2014, ako


ay ipinatawag ng aming HR manager at ipinakita
sa akin ang memo na ako daw ay nagkaroon ng
administrative offense. Act of dishonesty ang
ikinaso sa akin dahil sa tampering of time records
which warrants termination if proven guilty.
Bukod dito, ako ay inakusahan ng hindi
pagsusumite ng Daily Time Record (DTR);

(32) Ang hindi ko pagsusumite ng DTR sa


mga araw na sinasabi nila ay hindi ko kagagawan.
Sa mga araw na iyon ay ay wala kaming internet
connection. Ang katotohanang ito ay nakatala sa
logbook ng aming security guard. Nakasaad doon
ang mga araw na wala kaming internet
connection;

(33) Ako ay nagpasa ng explanation letter


noong ika-19 ng Setyember 2014. Ika-29 ng
Setyembre, ako ay nagulat sa schedule na
pinadala sa amin. May mga araw doon na ako ay
nakatakdang suspindido partikular sa mga araw ng
Oktubre 3,9 and 16, 2014;

(34) Ako ay nagtaka sapagkat wala pa akong


nakikita na displinary action notice ngunit
nakasaad na ang mga araw ng aking suspension
sa schedule ko;

(35) Ako ay napahiya sa aking mga staff


sapagkat tinatanong nila kung bakit ako
masususpinde;

(36) Pinatawag ako muli ng HR manager


namin na si Mabegaile Cacal noong ika-1 ng
Oktubre 2014 upang ihain sa akin ang aking
disciplinary action notice. Ako ay nagulat dahil ako
ay sinususpinde nila sa kadahilang "carelessness"
kahit wala naman grounds na naaayon sa aming
code of conduct;
(37) Ako ay napaiyak sa kadahilanang
naramdaman kong hindi tamang pagtrato sa aking
kaso. Masyadong harsh ang naging hatol sa
akin. Para sa akin, dapat sana ay stern warning
lamang dahil ang aking pagkakamali ay isang
very minor offense lamang;

(38) Nang araw ding iyon, binigyan na


naman nila ako ng panibagong memo na kung
saan ako ang kanilang sinisisi sa maling pagpull-
out ng YOT watch nang nangyari diumano noong
ika-27 ng Agosto 2014. Imposibleng ako ang may
kagagawan noon dahil ang araw na iyon ay aking
rest day at wala ako sa tindahan ng araw na iyon;

(39) Ang memo na inihain nila sa akin ay


nagsasaad na may parusa na namang
suspension kapag napatunayang ako ay
nagkasala;

(40) Doon na ako nakaramdam ng matinding


takot dahil tinotoo ni Ginoong Balita ang mga
banta niya sa akin;

(41) Ako ay nagpasyang humingi ng payo sa


aking bayaw na isang abogado upang idulog ang
nararamdaman kong hindi tamang pag-trato sa
akin. Naramdaman ko na magiging harsh ang
sanction sa kaso na na ibinibintang nila sa akin
dahil sa kagustuhan ni Ginoong Balita na ako ay
mag-resign na;

(42) Noong ika-3 ng Oktubre 2014, pumunta


ako muli sa opisina ng HR upang ihatid sa kanila
ang aking explanation letter. Hindi nila ito
tinanggap ang aking explanation letter sa
kadahilanang nalaman nilang ako ay dudulog na
sa NLRC para sana makakuha ng tamang
paghahatol;

(43) Nang mga sumunod na araw ay


pumasok pa rin ako sa tindahan upang makapag-
endorse sana ng maayos. Sa pagkakataon na ito,
pinuntahan ako ni Ginoong Balita at humingi ng
paumanhin sa nagawa niyang pagsasabi sa akin
ng mga masasakit na salita. Ngunit, ang
suspension ko daw ay itutuloy pa din;
(44) Sa ganitong pagkakataon ako ay tuluyan
ng lumapit sa NLRC at naghain na ng reklamo
noong October 13, 2014. Inihatid ko ng personal
ang SENA Notice of Conference sa opisina ni
Binibining Gaile Cacal;

(45) Muli ako bumalik sa tindahan noong ika-


16 ng Oktubre 2014 upang mag-turn over ng
accountabilities;
(46) Hindi ko po talaga matanggap ang
sinapit kong ito. Sa kabila ng tapat at maayos na
panunungkulan ko sa kumpanya ay naranasan ko
ang hindi tamang pag-trato mula sa aking mga
amo ng dahil lamang sa hindi sinasadyang
pagkakamali. Sa kauna-unahang pagkakataon ay
sinususpinde nila ako. Ang masakit pa nito ay
sunod-sunod ang mga pagbibintang sa akin ng
mga pagkakamali na hindi ko naman nagawa;

(47) Dahil sa aking biglaang pagkakatanggal


sa trabaho, ako at ang aking pamilya ay dumanas
ng di-birong hirap dahil sa ako lamang ang
inaasahan ng aking mga anak;

(48) Hindi ako mapagkatulog, walang ganang


kumain, laging balisa, nakaranas ng pagkapahiya,
insulto at iba pa;

(49) Dahil sa aking hindi magandang


karanasan sa kamay ng Technotime Retailers
Corporation at mga namumuno dito ay napilitan
akong magsampa ng kaso sa NLRC at kumuha ng
abogado para mahinusay at maayos kong malitis
at maipagtanggol ang aking sarili sa kasong ito;

(50) Ginawa ko ang Sinumpaang Salaysay na


ito para patunayan ang lahat na nakasaad sa
itaas.

BILANG PATOTOO, ay inilalagda ko sa ibaba


ang aking pangalan ngayong ika-09 ng Disyembre
2014 dito sa Lungsod ng Quezon.

3. Due to the failure of the parties to amicably resolve


their issues during the mandatory conference, both parties
are directed to submit their respective position papers.
Hence, this position paper.

ISSUES

I.

WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANT WAS


ILLEGALLY DISMISSED.
II.

WHETHER OR NOT COMPLAINANT IS ENTITLED TO ALL THE


MONEY CLAIMS HEREIN CLAIMED INCLUDING DAMAGES,
ATTORNEYS FEES, LITIGATION AND THE LIKE EXPENSES
INCLUDING COST OF THE SUIT FOR WHICH RESPONDENTS
ARE SOLIDARILY LIABLE

DISCUSSION/ARGUMENTS

COMPLAINANT WAS ILLEGALLY


DISMISSED.

Complainant was illegally dismissed.

Complainant, in her Sinumpaang Salaysay, clearly


demonstrated that, prior to her filing of this instant case, she
had been the victim of discrimination, disdain and
insensibility perpetrated by her own manager, Christian
Balita. The bullying behaviour of her superior did not only
harm her psychologically but it likewise inflicted, in her, fear
for her job security.

Complainant did not deliberately intend to quit her job


but was constrained to do so. She is a single mother whose
only source of income is her job as a store supervisor.
However, considering that she was already being pestered
by unfounded and baseless accusations and charges
initiated by Mr. Balita, she had no choice but to forego the
employment she endears. Worse, while she was trying to
keep her job and defend herself from unwarranted
imputations against her, she was never given the
opportunity to explain her side thoroughly but instead, was
served with suspension orders for offenses she did not
commit.

It is settled that constructive dismissal exists where


there is cessation of work because "continued employment
is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer
involving a demotion in rank or a diminution in pay and
other benefits. Aptly called a dismissal in disguise or an act
amounting to dismissal but made to appear as if it were not,
constructive dismissal may, likewise, exist if an act of clear
discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer
becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it
could foreclose any choice by him except to forego his
continued employment.

There was no clear intention on the Complainants part


to sever the employer-employee relationship. Considering
that intention is a mental state, it must be shown that the
Complainant acts point unerringly to her intent not to work
anymore. The Complainants filing of the complaint for
illegal dismissal on 13 October 2014 strongly speaks against
the Respondents charge of abandonment, for it is illogical
for an employee to abandon his employment and, thereafter,
file a complaint for illegal dismissal.

That abandonment is negated finds support in a long


line of cases where the immediate filing of a complaint for
illegal dismissal was coupled with a prayer for reinstatement;
the filing of the complaint for illegal dismissal is proof enough
of the desire to return to work. The prayer for reinstatement,
as in this case, speaks against any intent to sever the
employer-employee relationship.

Complainant did not abandon her work. She was forced


to forgo it against her will. The Supreme Court, in PAULINO
ALITEN vs. U-NEED LUMBER & HARDWARE, G.R. No.
168931, September 12, 2006, explains, to wit:

Abandonment, as a just and valid ground for


dismissal, requires the deliberate, unjustified
refusal of the employee to resume his
employment. Mere absence or failure to report for
work is not enough to amount to such
abandonment. There must be a concurrence of
the intention to abandon and some overt acts from
which an employee may be deduced as having no
more intention to work. The contemplation to
discontinue the employment must be shown by
clear proof that it was deliberate and unjustified, a
fact that herein private respondent failed to
evince.
To reiterate, abandonment is a matter of
intention and cannot lightly be presumed from
certain equivocal acts. There must be clear proof
of deliberate and unjustified intent to sever the
employment relationship. Certainly, the operative
act is still the employees decisive act of putting
an end to his employment. Additionally, it must be
stressed that the burden of proving the existence
of just cause for dismissing an employee, such as
abandonment, rests on the employer, a burden
private respondent failed to discharge.

Jurisprudence is replete with rulings that for


abandonment of work to exist, it is essential that
(1) the employee must have failed to report for
work or must have been absent without valid and
justifiable reason; and (2) there must have been
an indisputable intention to sever the employer-
employee relationship manifested by some overt
acts, with the second element as the more
determinative factor.

Employees who take steps to protest their dismissal


cannot logically be said to have abandoned their work. A
charge of abandonment is totally inconsistent with the
immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal. The filing
thereof is proof enough of ones desire to return to work,
thus negating any suggestion of abandonment. (Josan et.
al. vs. Aduna, G.R. No. 190794, February 22, 2012).

Complainant, therefore, was dismissed without any


justified cause. Settled is the rule that, in termination cases,
the burden of proving that the termination was for valid or
authorized causes rests on the employer. The requisites for a
valid dismissal are: (a) the employee must be afforded due
process, i.e. he must be given an opportunity to be heard
and to defend himself, and (b) the dismissal must be for
valid causes as provided in Article 282 of the Labor Code.
(Arboleda vs. NLRC, 303 SCRA 38).

In fine, the Complainant did not abandon her job but


was constructively dismissed because her continued
employment was rendered impossible, unreasonable or
unlikely as evinced by Respondents manifest discrimination,
disdain and insensibility.
As a consequence thereof, Respondents should to
reinstate immediately herein Complainant to her former
position, without loss of seniority rights and other privileges,
with payment of full back wages, starting from the time that
Complainant was illegally dismissed up to her actual
reinstatement.

COMPLAINANT IS CLEARLY
ENTITLED TO ALL THE MONEY
CLAIMS HEREIN CLAIMED
INCLUDING DAMAGES, ATTORNEYS
FEES, LITIGATION AND THE LIKE
EXPENSES INCLUDING COST OF THE
SUIT FOR WHICH RESPONDENTS
ARE SOLIDARILY LIABLE

A simple perusal of the Complaint and the Sinumpaang


Salaysay of herein Complainant reveal that Respondents
have violated different labor standard laws. Considering that
Complainant is seeking the satisfaction of simple money
claims, Respondents, therefore, are obligated to submit
proofs of payment of such claims. Otherwise, as a
consequence of Respondents failure to present or submit
proofs of payment, Complainants claim of non-payment of
money due her will become unquestionable.

Besides, in this jurisdiction, it is settled, that in cases of


money claims asserted by its employees, the burden of proof
is shifted to the employer, bearing in mind that it possesses
all the necessary pieces of evidence to prove payment of
such claims. What is required of the complainant-employee
is merely the execution of a sworn affidavit attesting to the
non-payment of the same. With the submission of herein
Complainants Sinumpaang Salaysay, she has more than
complied of what is expected of her.

As a proximate result of Respondents unlawful acts as


clearly adverted to above, Complainant suffered untold
miseries brought about by the sudden deprivation of her
only means of livelihood, Complainant being the bread
winner of her family.

All of the illegal and improvident acts of the


Respondents discussed above, which are part and parcel of
their malevolent design, have been motivated by ill-will and
illicit intentions and committed with wilful and evident bad
faith.

Verily, Complainant is entitled to moral damages as


provided for under Articles 2217 and 2219 in relation to
Article 21 and paragraph 6 of Article 32 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines. The foregoing provisions read as follows:

Article 2217. Moral damages


include physical suffering, mental
anguish, fright, serious anxiety,
besmirched reputation, wounded
feelings, moral shock, social humiliation,
and similar injury. Though incapable of
pecuniary computation, moral damages
may be recovered if they are the
proximate result of the defendants
wrongful act or omission. (Emphasis
supplied).

Article 2219. Moral damages may be


recovered in the following and
analogous cases:

xxx xxx xxx

(10) Acts and actions referred to in


Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34
and 35. (Underscoring Supplied).
Article 21. Any person who wilfully
causes loss or injury to another in a
manner that is contrary to morals, good
customs or public policy shall
compensate the latter for the damage.

Article 32. Any public officer or


employee, or any private individual, who
directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats,
violates or in any manner impedes or
impairs any of the following rights and
liberties of another person shall be liable
to the latter for damages:

xxx xxx xxx

(6) The right against deprivation of


property without due process of law.

Since it is clear that the Complainant is entitled to


moral damages, perforce, she, likewise, is entitled to
exemplary damages pursuant to Article 2229 of the Civil
Code of the Philippines which provides:

Article 2229. Exemplary or corrective


damages are imposed, by way of
example or correction for the public
good, in addition to the moral,
temperate, liquidated or compensatory
damages.

In Geronimo Q. Quadra vs. CA, G.R. No. 147593,


July 31, 2006, the Supreme Court held:

xxx xxx xxx

Worth reiterating is the rule that


moral damages are recoverable where
the dismissal of the employee was
attended by bad faith or fraud or
constituted an act oppressive to labor,
or was done in a manner contrary to
morals, good customs, or public policy.
Likewise, exemplary damages may be
awarded if the dismissal was effected in
a wanton, oppressive or malevolent
manner. (Italics supplied).

Finally, having been compelled to engage the services


of counsel to vindicate her right, Complainant is further
entitled to attorneys fees equivalent to ten (10) percent of
the total judgment amount that may be awarded herein. For
as the Supreme Court held in Philippine National
Construction Corporation vs. NLRC, 277 SCRA 91, thus:
It is settled that in actions for recovery
of wages or where an employee was
forced to litigate and, thus, incur
expenses to protect his rights and
interests, the award of attorneys fees is
legally and morally justifiable.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, it is most


respectfully prayed for, that after due consideration, a
DECISION BE RENDERED in favor of the Complainant, as
follows:

1. DECLARING Complainant to have been denied


due process and her dismissal as illegal;

2. DIRECTING Respondents to reinstate the


Complainant to her former position without loss of
seniority rights and other privileges and be paid with
FULL BACK WAGES from the time Complainant was
deprived of her work until she is actually reinstated
to her former position;

3. HOLDING all Respondents LIABLE, solidarily, for


DAMAGES in the amount of ONE HUNDRED
THOUSAND (P100,000.00) PESOS as moral
damages and TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND
(P200,000.00) PESOS as exemplary damages;

4. HOLDING all Respondents LIABLE, solidarily, for


all the money claims herein claimed;

5. DECLARING Respondents liable to reimburse


Complainant all her litigation and other related
expenses, including attorneys fees equivalent to ten
(10%) percent of the total monetary award;

OTHER RELIEFS deemed just and equitable under the


premises are likewise prayed for.
Quezon City, 09 December 2014.

LAWIN
(Legal Advocates for Workers INterest)
Counsel for Complainant
Room 206, Jiao Building
2 Timog Avenue, Quezon City
Email address: lawin2setufree@yhoo.com
Telefax (02) 373-18-44

ERNESTO R. ARELLANO
PTR No. 9032889; 01-03-14; Q.C.
IBP No. 950559; 01-03-14; CALMANA
ROLL No. 22660
MCLE No. IV-0017780; 22 April 2013

JASPER C. BALBOA
PTR No. 3122775; 05-08-14; MANILA
IBP No. 967904; 03-28-14; MANILA
ROLL No. 63288
MCLE (Not applicable; Admitted 07 May 2014)

Copy Furnished: by hand and during hearing

TECHNOTIME RETAILERS
CORPORATION, CHRISTIAN BALITA,
MABEGAILE CACAL
Respondents
UNIT 2501-2505 ONE CORPORATE
CENTER, JULIA VARGAS AVE., COR.
MERALCO AVE., ORTIGAS, PASIG CITY
1605

Received by : ___________________
Time and Date : ___________________